Abstract
How to answer a question? If the inquirer asks it in order to make a decision about something, then a wide range of reactions can be appropriate. If asked ‘Who of the applicants is qualified for the job?’, reactions may range from ‘Only Müller and Schmidt’, ‘At least Müller’, over ‘Müller has working experience in this field, ‘Schmidt needs extra training’’, to ‘The younger ones show more enthusiasm’, or even ‘The job needs an expert in PCF Theory’. This paper divides into two parts. The goal of the first part is to derive a measure of utility for answers from a game theoretic model of communication. We apply this measure to account for a number of judgements about the appropriateness of partial and mention-some answers. Under the assumption that interlocutors are Bayesian utility optimisers we see questioning and answering as a two-person game with complete coordination of preferences. Our approach builds up on work by A. Merin and R. v. Rooij on decision theoretically formulated measures of relevance.1 In the second part we study the relation between their approaches and our game theoretic model of answering. We are aiming for principled characterisations, and are especially interested in clarifying when and why we have to model this type of communication as a two-person game.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1984). Studies in the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1997). Questions. In J. v. Benthem and A. ter Meulen, eds., Handbook of Logic and Language, pp. 1055–124. Amsterdam.
Merin, A. (1999). Information, relevance, and social decisionmaking: Some principlesand results of decision-theoretic semantics. In L. Moss, J. Ginzburg, and M. de Rijke, eds., Logic, Language, and Information, volume 2. Stanford, CA.
Parikh, P. (1992). A game-theoretic account of implicature. In M. Kaufmann, ed., Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge. Monterey, CA.
Parikh, R. (1994). Vagueness and utility: The semantics of common nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17.
Pratt, J., H. Raiffa, and R. Schlaifer (1995). Introduction to statistical Decision Theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Raiffa, H. and R. Schlaifer (1961). Applied Statistical Decision Theory. Harvard.
van Rooij, R. (2003a). Quality and quantity of information exchange. Journal of Logic, Language, and Computation, 12, 423–51.
van Rooij, R. (2003b). Questioning to resolve decision problems. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 727–763.
van Rooij, R. (2003c). Questions and relevance. In Questions and Answers: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives (Proceedings of 2nd CoLogNET-EIsNET Symposium), pp. 96–107.
van Rooij, R. (2004a). Relevance of complex sentences. To appear in: Proceedings of LOFT04.
van Rooij, R. (2004b). Utility of mention-some questions. Research on Language and Computation, 2, 401–416.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2006 Anton Benz
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Benz, A. (2006). Utility and Relevance of Answers. In: Benz, A., Jäger, G., van Rooij, R. (eds) Game Theory and Pragmatics. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285897_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285897_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-52317-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-28589-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)